Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-05
only can be inflicted as he has no property.

only can be inflicted as he has no property
For the sake of the argument we mus
admit, as the jury found that True wa
guilty only of manslaughter In the seconG
degree, crime, which, under our statute.
| is not considered SO grave an offense q
| either burglary Or larceny, the punish
ment for burglary in the first degree being
not less than ten nor more than twenty ont
years confinement at hard labor. while The
punishment for grand larceny may be as
much as seven years Imprisonment at hard
| labor; showing by the punishment pre-
| scribed In the three cases Of burglary, lar
ceny and manslaughter, that the last named
is regarded as the smallest offense. We dc
not agree with the jury In their finding In
the True case. Such verdict upon the
facts shown was entirely unwar-
ranted by the law. But as we stated,
for the sake Of making just comparison,
we must admit that the facts were In keep
ing with the verdict, which state Of facts,
under our law, would be about as follows
That Jack True unnecessarily killed VIM.
Price while resisting an attempt on the
part of Price to con m some felony or otht
unlawful act, and atler such attempt by
Price had failed. Manslaughter In the
second degree is long way below murder,
and the punishment prescribed therefor Is
altogether commensurate with the degree
Of the offense. Now then, suppose that
Jack True had killed. instead of one man,
ten men. and at ten different times; his
punishment would have been not less THAI
thirty years imprisonment instead Of three,
and there would not have been one man
within the state of Kansas to have said that
he ought 10 be excused for all of his offens
es save one or two or that thirty years In
the penitentiary was too severe punish
ment for man who had been guilty of
killing only ten human beings.
Go farther. Suppose that Jack True, In.
stead of having killed one, or ten men. had
killed 20S men. at as many different
times, what then would have been his
smallest penalty? 1t would have been ga
years imprisonment and no one but an
Anarchist would have said that 624 years
was too much for the man who had a
heart capable of leading him into such
wholesale slaughter Of his fellow men as
that, were il possible for the felon 10 live
out such sentence. Is there not quite a
difference between thirty days and 1906
day? After all are the penalties prescribed
in the two cases much out Of proportion to
each others.
The conclusions reached by most people
in this matter as to the Inconsistency of the
above showing are just about as unwarrant
ed was the jury's finding in the True
case. LUXURIOUS.
The two cases referred to In the foEego-
ng are not analogous In their nature The
nan True was indicted for capital offense,
he penultY for which might have been as.
essed at death, and if that penalty were
Inflicted at all 1t could have been done so |
or one offense only, although he might |
ave been guilty Of the murder of ten or
wo hundred or thousand men. A Gu
lulative penalty could not be imposed Mt
D with Stewart His offense was only
yet its repetition under the
ocular form Of the law that makes his
ct an offense the penalty is compounded
ntil it is made to equal that ordinarily
nposed, In Kansas at least, for the high
1t crime known to the criminal calendar.
ogic that proves too much Is bad logic
Re think Licurgus' logic proves too much
ED.